Tuesday, 12 January 2016

One of the Major issues that NAYPIC was dealing with was the locking up of children as young as 10 years old. Panorama dealt a bit with this on it's programme about G4S (and Serco)

THE THERAPY OF FEAR

A Report of the casework of Mary Moss London Development Officer of NAYPIC (National Association of Young People In Care a care consumer-led group), 1987-1992, from Young People in Adolescent Psychiatric Units, both NHS and Privately Run.

Introduction

We would like to make it clear NAYPIC staff have not had any medical or
psychiatric training. This study is purely one based on casework and
complaints received by NAYPIC from children and young people in locked in
adolescent psychiatric and secure units. What NAYPIC has tried to do is
express their views and feelings regarding their experiences. As an
organisation concerned with the rights of young people, NAYPIC's conclusions
are based on questioning the moral, ethical and human rights aspects of
the treatment these young people experienced. However, NAYPIC believes that
the issues highlighted by this study raise serious questions regarding
the ethical and moral basis of both the medical and social work
philosophy that justifies the use of these establishments.

We are particularly concerned at the huge growth in private
adolescent units. Our research shows it is now big business. We
seriously question the regimes operated in these establishments, which
appear to operate on the borderline of acceptable practice. Of major
concern is the almost unrestricted and unsupervised use of drugs, a
number of which are experimental. We certainly came across many cases
where drugs intended to treat specific medical conditions were being
used in ‘cocktails’ as sedatives or for restraint. As far as NAYPIC can
ascertain, no checks or monitoring are carried out by either Department
of Health or Area Health Authorities. The regimes themselves are
brutal, humiliating and degrading for the children. The long-term
damage to these young people is incalculable.

Apart from the statistical analysis, NAYPIC gives individual case examples
which highlight the issues raised. In both NHS and private units
little, if any, regard appears to be paid to the basic human rights,
legal rights or civil liberties of the young people concerned. The law
itself seems to be widely ignored or flouted. NAYPIC has omitted the names
of young people and omitted referring authorities to protect the
identity of the young people and maintain confidentiality. Wherever
possible, we have obtained the young people’s permission to use their
cases in this study.

There were two fundamental issues raised in all
the cases seen that made it difficult to cope with the anger we felt.
Indeed, all of us at NAYPIC felt these issues were at the very heart of
what we stand for.

Firstly, all of these children were at the bottom of the heap. The
intractable, long-term cases of children, most of whom had been in care
for a long time. They had all suffered the worst the ‘care’ system
could inflict – sexual, physical and emotional abuse, many placements,
cut off from family and friends. They were isolated, vulnerable victims
who were labelled ‘disturbed’, ‘maladjusted’ etc. These units were
usually the end of the line – the dumping ground for difficult cases.
We seriously question any justification for dumping physically differently abled, mentally differently abled as well as mentally ill and so called ‘disturbed’ children
from care in the same units, in particular America Medical
International’s (AMI) Langton House.

Virtually every social worker responsible for young people was
extremely defensive and could offer little real social work
justification for placement in such units. Mostly they were the only
placements available that would take these children. One social worker
openly admitted it was the only place that would take his client, a 15
year-old girl – it was either that, or prison on an unruly certificate.
Given the way she was treated, prison would have been a preferable
alternative in her view.

Secondly, there was an issue that goes right to the heart of living
in a civilised, humane and caring society. It is the most basic of all
human rights, not just for children and young people, but for everyone
to be able to live their lives free from fear. The experience of every
one of NAYPIC referrals was of living in these places for months or years
in a constant state of apprehension and fear. Afraid to laugh or cry;
to smile; to protest; often to play or engage in any activity or even to
show happiness or sadness. Living in constant fear of restraint and
the ‘jab’, electroconvulsive therapy or even punishment. The fear of
being humiliated and degraded just for showing normal human responses to
mistreatment and neglect, the use of ‘mood inhibitor’ drugs to produce
controllable zombies, devoid of human emotion. All of this ‘justified’
as behavioural therapy. There can be no justification, medical or
moral, that uses fear, humiliation and degradation as a ‘therapy’ to
treat the survivors of abuse. Children have a right to childhood and
all that entails; to be robbed of this in the name of therapy is cruel,
inhuman and unacceptable. This abuse of children must be stopped and
these practices outlawed as they directly contravene basic human rights.

1. NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE UNITS
We received complaints regarding the regimes at 17 psychiatric
hospital units, spread across the country. Some were complaints from a
single young person about his or her treatment within a unit, often as
part of a general complaint about treatment within the care system.
These young people tended to have been ‘known’ to social services and
the psychiatric service for many years. Most had been in and out of
care and through a variety of ‘care’ placements. All had initially been
the victims of some form of abuse. All NAYPIC's cases felt that this
initial abuse was either ignored or soon forgotten, as they were
‘labelled’ due to their behavioural difficulties which were as a result
of extreme behaviour problems, constant running away from care or
behaviour perceived as overtly ‘sexual’.

There were particular establishments about which we received many
complaints, the worst in this respect being Hillend Adolescent
Psychiatric Unit near St Albans. A total of 17 young people complained
about the regime and their treatment there. The next worse was the unit
attached to Bexley Psychiatric Hospital with 9 complaints. In virtually all the cases NAYPIC dealt with, the young people’s
complaints were rarely taken seriously. Where we did get a response, it
was the usual one of ‘malicious complaints’ from a disturbed, or group
of disturbed, young people. One psychiatrist wrote ‘one must realise
that in a group of very disturbed young people, this (malicious
complaints) is not surprising’.

None of the young people felt they were believed and none felt their
complaints were fairly or properly investigated. In one case a girl had
been raped on several occasions (this was acknowledged by the unit) and
they had reported it to the police, together with complaints by other
girls, all under 16 years of age. The rapes had been carried out by a
disturbed adult patient. Yet the unit could not explain why this man
had access to the adolescent unit, nor would they accept any
responsibility for the lack of supervision which had placed these young
people at risk.

At Hill End, NAYPIC received complaints from two young people who seem to
have been sent there purely because they suffered from anorexia
nervosa. Both had been committed under Mental Health Act legislation
and had been kept locked up on secure wards. Their ‘treatment’ appears
to have been solely behavioural modification ‘therapy’ and use of
sedative drugs. The use of drugs, particularly largactil and
haraparadol, both as treatment and during restraints is a common and
widespread practise. At Hill End, we also had many complaints from
young people (supported by staff) that sedation was used as punishment.
As an example, one young person, out of sheer boredom, set off the fire
alarms. As she did not own up, all eight young people in her dormitory
were sedated for 24 hours. Those that did not take it voluntarily were
forcibly sedated.
Another common practise at Hill End and other units was that during
forcible restraints, their trousers and undergarments were pulled down
and injections administered in their buttocks or thighs, often
violently. All young people felt humiliated and sexually assaulted by
this treatment, particularly female young people, subjected to this
treatment by male staff. They often complained of being ‘groped’ or
‘touched up’ by males in these situations. All the female young people
who complained had been subjected to strip searches on occasion by male
staff and about 60% of those had also been body searched. The most
common excuse being searching for glass or other sharp objects with
which young people could damage themselves. Yet most young people felt
that the circumstances at the time of the search gave no rise to any
real concern that young people had any such items. Generally, strip
searching appears to be part of general routine procedures within
units. For instance, young people being strip searched after visits by
social workers because ‘that is the rule.’

Another disturbing feature was the length of time young people had
been on sedatives, most for many years. One 15 year-old had first been
put on valium aged two. Another 17 year-old girl had been on largactil
since the age of four. When we saw her, she was also taking tegretol
and other drugs. She suffered from ulcers, kidney problems, anaemia and
muscular spasms. Many seemed to be on extremely high doses, such as
the young girl who appeared to be on 100 mg doses of largactil four
times daily, plus sleeping pills. The general picture that emerged
appears to indicate the indiscriminate use of largatil, valium,
haraparadol and tegretol, as a substitute for real therapy for the abuse
that was the initial cause of their problems. In all the cases NAYPIC
investigated, not one of the young people’s social workers questioned
the use of sedatives or drug therapy on their clients or saw it as their
place to question this treatment.

Sexual abuse appears to be common-place in these establishments. 78%
of females reported being sexually abused either by male staff or by
other male patients. About 25% of boys reported sexual abuse by male
staff. Many did not complain as they felt they would not be believed. NAYPIC was shocked when one 13 year-old girl expressed surprise when we said she should complain. Since an early age, she had been
sexually abused by most male carers she had been in contact with:
father; an uncle; a teacher; two different foster parents and care staff
in her homes. The child saw nothing unusual in having sex with one of
the male nurses in her unit – it was normal ‘affection’ to her.
We were also shocked to find how little understanding these units
actually had in dealing with sexual abuse victims. Self-mutilation
appears to be seen solely as a symptom of low self-esteem or as
attention-seeking behaviour. Even young girls who slashed their breasts
or faces were diagnosed as such, with little thought to the cause of
such extreme behaviour. In most cases NAYPIC dealt with, we discovered
undiagnosed sexual abuse and the resultant guilt and low self-esteem
were the prime cause of such behaviour. But not being doctors nor
psychiatrists, what is our credibility!
Disturbingly, in one case of an isolated complaint, NAYPIC was convinced
that the girl was part of an organised sexual abuse ring and used the
unit as an ‘escape’ from this abuse. Although she had some difficulty
in distinguishing reality, mainly due to the heavy sedation, there was
enough in what she told NAYPIC to recognise the only too familiar
signs of such organised abuse. It is worth mentioning that NAYPIC come
across organised abuse and ritualistic abuse quite a lot and it has been
increasing to a disturbing degree, particularly satanic ritualistic
abuse. However, the unit concerned above seemed unaware of the problem
and ridiculed our suggestion they should explore the issue with the
girl. They said it was all sexual fantasy and the girl had a history of
sexual promiscuity and overt sexual behaviour from a very young age.
Nobody seemed to have bothered to find out why.
Most young people, we found, accepted being locked up as par for the
course and rarely questioned why. They seemed to accept that staff
decided it was for their own good. When we looked at how the young
people got there, only a few were detained under Mental Health Act
legislation. Most were ‘voluntary’ admissions, although few of the
young people felt they had any real say in it or were consulted
properly. None of the young people felt that any real, alternative
therapy was even discussed and most felt ‘persuaded’ by social workers
that it was ‘for the best.’

NAYPIC came across a disturbing number of cases
(67) in which ‘voluntary’ admission or a secure unit was the choice
these young people faced. NAYPIC came across one girl who, during
psychotherapy at a secure unit placement, had disclosed sexual abuse to
her therapist. A review decided on her transfer to an adolescent
psychiatric unit (she was a Ward of Court). At the unit she was put on
sedation. After four months she was transferred back to the secure
unit. She had received no therapy other than drugs and three half-hour
sessions with a psychiatrist. She reports that she was being restrained
constantly and if she did not comply immediately, she was forcibly
injected with haraparadol. The girl was physically abused and had been
sexually assaulted by a male patient. She attempted to cut herself on
several occasions, but this only led to her being kept heavily sedated
for three days after. Eventually, her behaviour became so bad she was
sent back to the secure unit, in a far worse state than when she had
left it. She was still on largactil and tegretol months later.
Another girl, aged 16, had been constantly in and out of psychiatric
units since being taken into care at the age of three, following sexual
abuse. She had been on sedation for many years and, when we saw her,
she was taking 350 mg largactil daily and tegretol. She first came to NAYPIC for help because the adolescent psychiatric unit she was in had
closed and she had been transferred to a closed adult ward, although she
was then only 15 years-old. She had been sexually abused on a number
of occasions and also been beaten up. She had spent a lot of time
locked up in a secure unit. Although very disturbed, she was extremely
intelligent and articulate. It seems that psychiatrists and
psychologists could not cope with this and she had never received any
real therapy. She was later transferred to a secure unit and then sent
to a private adolescent unit.

Virtually every young person who complained was on long-term use of
sedative drugs, mainly valium, largactil, tegretol, haraparadol or
pharisadine. Many reported suffering serious side effects including
inability to concentrate, muscle spasms, skin rashes, jaundice and, in
one case, stomach ulcers. Most of the young people felt ‘fucked-up’ by
the drugs and stopped taking them on release or transfer from the unit.
None of the young people had received any counselling on the effects of
long-term use of these drugs, or any therapy or support to help wean
them off the drugs on their release. We are very concerned about the
use of tegretol, which appears to be used as a ‘mood inhibitor’ as part
of the ‘behaviourist therapy’ practised in many of these units. Even
normal behaviour for adolescents is perceived as abnormal. Tegretol is
used to inhibit emotions such as laughing, sadness and high spirits.
Tegretol is also used in ‘cocktails’ with haraparadol and administered
during physical restraints. Most young people felt very ill after
this. Couple with the often extreme physical force and forcible
injection during restraint, all the young people lived in a constant
state of fear of ‘the jab’ and restraint.

Young people were often left badly bruised and battered following
restraint and virtually all those young people perceived these
restraints as physical abuse. Three of the young people complaining had
suffered broken arms during restraint and one young person had both
shoulders dislocated when her arms were twisted violently up her back
when she was restrained by four male staff members.

The overuse and
improper use of restrain and excessive violence during restraints was
the most common complaint we received.

Strip searching and body searching appears to be a matter of routine
procedure in all units.

Many of the young people complained of being
strip searched by persons of a different sex to them. 65% of complaints
also concerned the use of sexist or racist abuse during restraint or
strip searching. Many girls reported that staff made derogatory
comments about the size of their breasts and all felt totally humiliated
and degraded by this process. Yet most units, when challenged, denied
body searches were ever used, and claimed that strip searches were only
carried out in exceptional circumstances and were strictly supervised
The over-whelming evidence is that this is patently not so. That
strip searches and body searches are routine. Very few units had
written guidelines, none explained these to young people and only one
unit had proper complaints procedures. Most seemed to feel they had no
need for complaints procedures as they had mental health tribunals and
internal procedures which they considered sufficient. None of the units
provided any guidance to young people on how the complain. Most young
people were too frightened to complain. All said that previous
experience had taught them that they would not be believed.
NAYPIC was absolutely staggered, in preparing this report, to discover
the extent of sexual abuse. Some 78% of complaints included sexual
abuse. Whilst NAYPIC realises that young people were coming to us to
complain, the extent to which sexual abuse came up in complaints was
surprising. It is worth noting that in only nine cases out of the 182
reported cases of sexual abuse, was that the MAIN cause of the initial
complaint or referral.

Very few young people wanted to complain
officially about the sexual abuse as they did not think they would be
believed.

Many of the young people, who were not held under Mental Health Act
legislation, complained of being given brain scans or EEGs as a routine
part of admission procedures, without their permission. As only a small
percentage of young people appear to be admitted to these units with a
diagnosed mental condition, we must question the use of these procedures
as a routine part of admission without specific medical need.

As far as young people from the care system were concerned, they felt
their admission to these units was to treat perceived behavioural
problems.

Very few felt that social workers, psychiatrists etc were
really concerned about the abuse that young people had suffered, despite
the fact the abuse was the cause of their problems.

All felt they had
not been listened to and had been labelled ‘disturbed’ or ‘maladjusted’
or ‘psychotic’ because it was easier for the system to deal with them.

None of the young people felt they had received any real help or therapy
in these units at all.

In following up these young people, we found
that most of them were discharged into prison, long-term psychiatric
care or had disappeared onto the streets.

One final statistic concerning the young people we saw. 19 are now
dead. Five committed suicide. Eleven died from drug overdoses. Two
died from AIDS. One was killed in a crash in a stolen car. A number
just disappeared ‘on the run’ and we never heard from them again. One
13 year old was living on the streets, being pimped along with five
other girls under the age of 16, all on the run from care. As well as
prostitution, all were being made to do sex videos and live sex shows.
They were generally ‘paid’ by their pimps with drugs and given a little
cash. Both their social services departments (two from the Midlands,
two from London, one from Wales, one from Northern Ireland) and the
police were informed by NAYPIC. They did not seem interested or at all
concerned. Incidentally, the youngest girl being pimped by this man had
just turned 12 years of age and was on the run from an adolescent unit
in the Midlands.

Quite a number of young people, who have left these types of
institutions, were users of hard drugs, speed, coke, skag, crack and so
on. Many told us they felt they now used drugs because they had become
used to surviving on legitimate drugs throughout their childhoods and
now needed drugs to survive. It was what they were used to.

There
seems to us a clear connection between legalised drugs, given as a
substitute for therapy in these institutions, and a later reliance on
hard drugs on the streets, or isolated in hostels or bedsits on
release.

NAYPIC does not know of any research done in the area, but believe
it would be valuable.
NAYPIC is also extremely concerned at the number of ‘street kids’ we see
who have either run away from these units or appear to have been
abandoned after discharge. No one appears to be picking up on these
young people and even many police and others we have spoken to have
expressed concern as to the continuing vulnerability of these young
people and the total lack of provision for them. Many NAYPIC has seen survive by
begging, although recent police operations against these young people
have made even this means of survival difficult. None of the young
people NAYPIC knows make anywhere near the huge sums it is claimed they
make. The reality is they are barely surviving and often go cold and
hungry.

2. PRIVATE ADOLESCENT UNITS

NAYPIC received complaints about five such units, three of which were run
and administered by AMI plc, the American Medical Insurance company
which now controls over 50% of the private medical market in the UK.
The bulk of complaints concerned AMI’s Langton House in Dorset. Both NAYPIC and other agencies had received many complaints in the past
regarding this establishment, when it was known as ‘Spyways’ (see
Appendix 2). This establishment calls itself an ‘adolescent psychiatric
unit’. It is registered as a nursing home. It advertises regularly in
the social work press and aims specifically at social services
departments as its main target group, with the use of highly dubious and
emotive adverts (see Appendix 3). It takes clients from the age of 12
up to their early twenties in the following categories:
A) Mentally ill
B) Mentally challenged with head injuries
C) Physically challenged
D) Difficult to place children from care

All young people live together and are subject to the same ‘treatment
regime’. The establishment is run strictly on American behavioural
therapy lines, which were pioneered by AMI in the United States. Their
methods are the subject of great controversy in the USA, not only among
social work professionals and others, but with civil liberties groups. A
recent America TV documentary highlighted the extreme brutality of
regimes in some of their institutions, including one establishment where
staff used cattle prods to control young people. Great concern has
also been raised regarding ‘the unrestricted use of drugs, including
highly controversial ones’, as the major part of therapy. The regime is
based totally on a system of reward and punishment, everything has to
be ‘earned’ by conforming to strict behaviour goals and young people are
‘failed’ for even the most minor breaches. AMI have imported many of
those methods over here.

The complaints NAYPIC received were as follows:

1. Young people were given brain scans/EEGs against their wishes and for no obvious beneficial reasons.

2. Young people were being given medication against their wishes and with little or no consultation with their social workers.

3. Young people were subjected to extreme violence during restraint,
including having their heads banged against walls, kicked and punched,
and dragged down corridors.

4. Allegations of sexual abuse and failure to protect young people from sexual abuse.

5. The use of humiliation, verbal abuse, racism and sexism as a means of control.

6. Male staff being present and taking part in the strip searching of girls, which is a routine procedure.

7. Forcible injection of haraparadol/tegretol cocktails as a punishment, as part of routine procedure.

8. Unlawful imprisonment as a means of control.

9. Young people were subjected to humiliating and degrading practises as part of the everyday ethos of the establishment.

10. No formal complaints procedure and the intimidation and victimisation of young people who do complain.

This report will go into detail of these complaints and also try to look at
the serious issues these raise regarding acceptable practice and the
gross violation of young people’s civil liberties and basic human
rights.

A number of young people initially wrote to NAYPIC asking for help. NAYPIC wrote back and later spoke to some of the young people by telephone,
those that had ‘earned’ the privilege as well as those we covertly spoke to on the residents payphone and a few that ran away to our NAYPIC offices. The letters and verbal accounts recorded by the NAYPIC offices spoke of violent
restraints and young people being degraded. They spoke of two blind
boys covered with bruises. How a deaf girl was always ‘failed for
volume’ – she did not realise she shouted because she was deaf. NAYPIC was
told of young people being locked up in a dark, small room. They also
spoke of being locked up in an observation room, sometimes for days.
They told of being given ‘the jab’ – forcible injections of haraparadol
and tegretol, during restraints. Girls were forced to ask male staff
for sanitary towels and were often laughed at. They were told to
produce used ones before being issued with new ones and were made to
‘prove’ they were having periods, often to male staff, before they were
allowed off swimming.
NAYPIC had one written allegation that a girl was raped by one of the
boys. She complained to staff but they just laughed. NAYPIC was very
shocked by this, as this girl was an official case. NAYPIC had submitted a complaint
on her behalf to the local government ombudsman regarding serious abuse
she had previously suffered in a local authority children’s home. (Her
complaint was later upheld by the ombudsman and she was awarded
compensation). We had been assured that she was in ‘a regional
establishment’ and receiving the best of care.

NAYPIC learned that young people were given brain scans and EEGs on
admission. They lived in constant fear as they could be ‘failed’ for
the smallest thing. Failure would result in a total loss of all
privileges – letters, telephone calls, visits, sweets etc. The letters spoke of
verbal abuse from staff and how strip searching was a matter of
routine, with male staff often present when this was done. NAYPIC also
received written allegations of sexual abuse and violence. All this was
confirmed by other young people we spoke to, including ex-residents.

Additionally, NAYPIC was told:

1. Young people were given tegretol ‘cocktails’ if they exhibited any
emotional behaviour, even normal emotional responses. Tegretol is used
as a mood inhibitor.

2. All young people were given drugs, either occasional or on
long-term use. These included valium, largactil, haraparadol, tegretol
and others. Many young people said they refused to sign the medical
treatment permission slips on admission and medication was administered
against their will.

3. On admission, a 12 year-old blind boy urinated on the floor
because no one would show him where the toilets were. Staff restrained
him violently and rubbed his nose in the urine. He was told this would
happen every time he did it.

4. Two young people witnessed the same child being violently
restrained by staff. One was banging his head against a wall and he was
dragged off to a ‘quiet room’ with blood pouring from his head.

5. Young people were ‘jabbed’ for no reason at all. Staff made sure
that they were sedated in this way, both as a punishment and a warning.

6. None of the staff had any training in paediatric psychiatric
nursing. The restraint and physical control techniques were those
taught to prison and police riot control officers. This was later
confirmed to us by AMI who admitted it was the Home Office approved
course.

7. Young people had to go to the office to be issued with two sheets of toilet paper before using the toilet.

8. Staff referred to mentally handicapped children as ‘subbies’. A
common punishment for failing was being made to eat your meals at the
same table as the ‘subbies’.

9. A number of young people were given experimental drug cocktails,
which gave them severe side-effects. They described these as ‘muscles
feeling loose. You felt cold inside and could not open your eyes.
Sometimes your neck goes rigid and your muscles cramp up’. They also
complained of stomach cramps, vomiting, lack of ability to concentrate
and dizziness. One of the drugs had a name like parsatron (their
spelling).

10. One girl had her arm broken during restraint.

11. Staff threw bricks at two young people who were trying to run off.

12. One girl was indecently assaulted by a male member of staff.

NAYPIC continued to receive a constant string of complaints. NAYPIC also had
a young person visit the office quite independently of all this, who
had been discharged some months previously and who wanted to complain. NAYPIC contacted both the East Dorset Health Authority and the police. NAYPIC
also wrote to the Social Services Departments of all the young people
who had complained (see appendices). The Area Health Authority held a
short, secret Inquiry and at no time approached us or asked us to give
evidence, despite having agreed that NAYPIC could represent the young
people and that they could have NAYPIC representatives present when
interviewed. This never happened. When NAYPIC went to visit the young
people in Dorset NAYPIC was thrown out by the officer-in-charge and denied access.
Having finally, after three months, obtained the permission of all the
young people’s social workers, and arranged a date to visit, it was
cancelled by the officer-in-charge because he had ‘another meeting’.
The following day, he wrote refusing to let NAYPIC see the young people
concerned.

In a letter to the Department of Education, AMI in response to allegations claimed:

1. Brain scans were given if they considered it necessary and EEGs
were routinely used as part of the admission procedure. They claimed
young people could refuse.

2. Medication was prescribed by ‘medical staff’ and could be refused
by young people, unless it was ‘necessary for their health’ or they
were detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. AMI had previously
claimed that medication was prescribed by the young people’s GP.

3. That all allegations were vigorously investigated ‘where
appropriate’ by the registering authority. In fact, Langton House is
registered as a nursing home. It is not registered as a school, a
community home with education (CHE), a psychiatric unit, nor as a
children’s home.

4. That they denied all allegations.

5. Strip searches took place with male staff present. They justified this on grounds of reasonable cause for suspicion.

6. They claim they only use a ‘time-out’ room. No mention is made of the two ‘observation’ rooms.

7. They claim there is no intentional humiliation of young people.
They say ‘the issue of sanitary provision had to be controlled to
prevent misuse’.

In short, AMI either deny allegations or justify their ‘regime’ as
reasonable and appropriate treatment, given the type of young people
they deal with. As usual, the complaints are either malicious or
because ‘psychological problems impair reasoning or interpretive
skills’. They also claim they have a complaints procedure (pinned to a
notice board in a hallway) and that young people can complain to a
‘committee of visitors’ or the Mental Health Act Commission. Given that
these ‘rights’ are not explained to young people in an understandable
way, they have no access to independent advice or representation and
were, in fact, denied access to NAYPIC, we must question the validity of
this claim.

NAYPIC took up these complaints and the professional, ethical and social
work issues arising from these complaints with the Area Health Authority
(NAYPIC letter attached as appendix). Their response was a point blank
refusal to discuss these issues with NAYPIC. Another disturbing feature
that has emerged from current complaints was that reports on young
people were manipulated by Langton House staff purely to justify
continued placement there. Young people told us that the reports often
said they were either on a higher or lower ‘level’ than they really
were, with a recommendation for continued placement there. AMI refused
to discuss with us the cost of placements at Langton. However, one
referring local authority told us they were paying £55,000 per year for a
placement there. Clearly there is a great financial incentive for
wanting to ensure placements of young people at Langton House lasted as
long as possible.

The issue that disturbed NAYPIC most of all was the placement of
physically challenged young people in this establishment. NAYPIC cannot
accept, under any circumstances at all, that behaviourist therapy is an
acceptable treatment for a physical challenged. Given they also accept
mentally challenged young people, with a low mental age due to brain damage.

NAYPIC noted on
our visit that there were no play or recreational facilities in the
grounds. NAYPIC only saw young people herded into a small tennis court for
‘exercise’. There seemed no room for any unstructured play necessary
for children and young adults. In looking through a window at the side
of the house, we saw a number of young people just sitting under
tables. Other young people told us this was commonplace and, again,
there were no structured play facilities for learning and toys were not
allowed.

In looking at the ethical and professional ethos behind the regime at
Langton House, NAYPIC became increasingly disturbed at the lack of even
basic human rights for the young people there.

The ‘therapy’ consisted
of the use of fear.

Young people lived in a constant state of fear.
Fear of being jabbed or sedated. Fear of being ‘failed’ and losing
points. This, in turn, led to the loss of even the most basic
‘privileges’, such as food, exercise and fresh air. There appeared to
be no standard of what was an acceptable level of ‘normal’ behaviour
against which young people were judged. Being ‘failed’ was a matter for
individual judgement on the part of staff and appeared to depend much
on their own moods or prejudices.
Coupled with the practice of ‘failing’ was the deliberate use of
humiliation and degradation as another ‘therapy’. As staff are taught
these techniques on the Home Office course for restraint, NAYPIC can only
assume this was part of the philosophy of the establishment. In
addition, looking at the daily living of young people, this philosophy
could be clearly seen. Young people being issued with only two sheets
of toilet paper; girls having to produce ‘used’ sanitary towels before
getting clean ones; girls forced to ask male staff members for sanitary
towels; the use of the term ‘subbies’; staff using their professional
knowledge to intimidate young people. Indeed, NAYPIC witnessed the way one
young girl was reduced to a crying, nervous wreck by the deputy. The
girl was absolutely terrified of what would happen to her when NAYPIC left.
Given that many of these young people were victims of appalling abuse
that had led to their placement at Langton House and that, in common
with most such young people, they had a pretty poor self-image and low
self-esteem, to further humiliate and degrade them in this way is beyond
belief. NAYPIC can find no justification at all for such brutal and
inhumane treatment – it is certainly not therapy.

If the yardstick for basic human rights can be measured by the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, then Langton House
violates virtually every article in the Charter in respect of young
people in its care.

Article 39 of the UN Charter states ‘parties shall
take all appropriate measure to promote the physical and psychological
recovery and social re-integration of a child victim of any form of
neglect, exploitation or abuse; torture or any form of cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment. Such recovery and re-integration
shall take place in an environment which fosters the health,
self-respect and dignity of the child.

It is also clear from documentation around the time of the previous
inquiry (when Langton House was called Spyways), and from recent
correspondence, that the practices and regimes at Langton House are
known to, and have been approved by, the Area Health Authority in East
Dorset, the Social Services Inspectorate, the Department of Health and
East Dorset Social Services. The issues of basic human rights, civil
liberties, the setting of standards and regulatory functions should and
must be a matter for parliament and public debate.
NAYPIC is concerned too
that, in their response to our complaints, AMI sent the Area Health
Authority copies of their policy on care, restraint, strip searching and
so on. NAYPIC notes all these ‘policy’ documents were dated 21st May 1990,
over three months after NAYPIC submitted our complaints. NAYPIC finds it strange
that after all these years, AMI only produce a policy AFTER complaints
are made and that the Area Health Authority, the Social Services
Inspectorate and the DHS accept this as ‘proof’ that AMI has been
operating properly.

As stated previously, AMI operates Langton House as a registered
nursing home. They call themselves an adolescent psychiatric unit yet
are not registered as such with the DHS. They take children of school
age and allegedly provide ‘education’ but are not registered as a
school, or community home with education (CHE), with the DES. They
provide 52 week ‘care’ for children but are not registered as a
children’s home and, despite taking physically challenged children, are not
registered as such with social services or the Department of Health.

They operate a secure provision, the so-called ‘operation room’, but are
not registered as a secure unit.

Indeed, they cannot under existing
legislation operate such a provision.

In short, Langton House is a dumping ground for the most vulnerable
and difficult-to-place young people. To condone such practices, in
violation of the United Nations Charter and the European Convention,
exposes the hypocrisy of the United Kingdom’s government as a signatory
to both.

Clearly, basic human rights are only seen by the United
Kingdom’s government as applying to other countries.

Langton House was not the only AMI establishment we have received
complaints about. NAYPIC received similar complaints from other young
people of physical violence, over use of violent restraints, the use of
the ‘jab’, use and over use of sedatives and sexual abuse, at other
establishments. These other establishments also seem to operate along
the same lines of fear, humiliation and degradation as therapy.

Appendix

Use of drug ‘cocktails’ for sedation and restraint

The complaints NAYPIC received from young people raised questions not
only about the types of drugs used in homemade ‘cocktails’ at Langton
House, but also serious ethical and moral questions about the methods of
prescribing, usage, monitoring, inspection and regulation.

Aside from
largactil, valium and temazepam, which are generally recognised as
having a therapeutic value as a sedative over a limited period, NAYPIC
questions the use of other drugs, not specifically designed for use as
sedatives.

NAYPIC understand the use of largactil, valium and temazepam
thoughout the NHS as sedatives, but the use and time period are now
strictly monitored by GPs.

There were a number of other drugs in common use at Langton House.
In particular, tegretol and haraparadol. It is common practise for both
these drugs to be given to many of the young people at Langton up to
four times daily.

Most of the young people who complained to NAYPIC were
the subject of Care Orders and had not been admitted under Mental Health
Act legislation. NAYPIC has questione both AMI’s authority to prescribe these
drugs and also their use as a sedative ‘jab’ during restraints.

Neither
the officer-in-charge nor any of his staff are qualified medical
practitioners and cannot prescribe medication. Many of the young people
refused to sign the ‘Medical Permission’ slips on admission and we
question the use of ‘open-ended’ prescriptions authorised by
non-resident doctors employed by AMI on an ad-hoc ‘as required’ basis
which allows Langton House staff to determine how, when and how much
drugs young people get.

NAYPIC checked with a number of well-known and reputable psychiatric
departments at major London hospitals, as well as the Institute of
Psychiatry and an independent consultant in chemistry.

Tegretol is an
anti-convulsion drug used to treat epilepsy and other neuro-disfunction
disorders. It is generally administered in tablet form. It can also
act, as one of its side-effects, as a mood inhibitor and, for this
reason, its dosage and use is rigidly controlled.

All the professionals
we have talked to have expressed concern at any use of tegretol as a
mood inhibitor or as a general tranquiliser, particularly on young
people.

NAYPIC discovered that tegretol was being mixed with haraparadol
and largactil into a ‘cocktail’ and would be administered to young
people by injection during restraint.

Young people have told NAYPIC that
such sedation was often given as a result of ‘failing’ (according to
AMI’s peculiar brand of behavioural therapy), for laughing, crying or
expressing any extremes of emotion. Even normal, youthful high spirits
was deemed ‘failing’. As far as NAYPIC can tell, the only purpose for using
mood inhibitor drugs is for control. No doubt, having a group of
‘zombies’ was much more administratively convenient and ensured maximum
control with fairly minimal staffing levels and maximised profit.

NAYPIC questioned also the use of haraparadol, both as a restraint and in
its long-term use on young people, many of whom had been on high dosages
for long periods of time. This drug is well-known for producing
dystonic reaction in patients and many of the young people reported a
severe or extreme reaction to this drug.

Having taken advice, as far as NAYPIC can ascertain, the position of
Langton House under Common Law, as regards the forcible injection of
sedatives during restraint, is that this could be construed as a
criminal assault.

AMI claim justification for forcible injection of
sedation, under Common Law, on the grounds of:

1. Saving life

2. Relief of acute distress

There may well be some justification for sedating a violent or very
disturbed young person on grounds of relief or acute distress. However,
Langton House staff use a ‘mood inhibitor’ drug, not a recognised
sedative, which cannot be said to meet either of these two
requirements. Further, young people have said that these restraints
were often conducted on a random basis to ensure that all young people
were regularly restrained, as part of the behaviourist regime at Langton
House. If this is the case, then young people’s complaints of criminal
assault are justified.

Development Officer Mary Moss later closed down Langton House making News at Ten.

The need for a project like ours and how we have identified this.
We know there is already a need for this, even within the social work
courses at universities and colleges. Often social workers do not get
the chance to really meet the young people they will work with, to get
to
know their real feelings, until they are trained and often by then it is
too late to change their minds about the profession they have embarked
on.
The youth parliament is about creating a public mind-shift about the
way we view children and their experiences. Public debate and publicity
can help this project. There is a growing amount of real evidence as to
the abuse of children.
Below is a list of the cases we were investigating just before our closure under John Major's administration:

• Lisa G 1989 – Split from siblings against her wishes- violent and
humiliating assault by staff in secure unit MKH Greenwich . Ward of
Court place in care by the London Borough of, Kingston upon Thames .

• Andrew, Bradford , sexually abused/child porn/snuff movies. We have
all the evidence of flights, hotels etc. Andrew subsequently kidnapped
from one of our development workers house when he stepped out her flat
door. He had a blanket thrown over his head and was taken away in a
vehicle. Seen next day in a Rolls Royce by a member. A few days later
showed up at our offices demanding we give him back all evidence as he
had the Walthamstow brothers outside waiting for him and the evidence.
He was told he would be set up in a nice cushy job as a photographer
back in Bradford if he behaved.

• Julie R, aged 15, July 1985, Greenwich , tortured with an
electrical carving knife and involved in a porn ring. Now in long term
psychiatric.

• Arrow Project Cumbria our Manchester office received reports of
abuse. The whereabouts of the Manchester files are still unknown but an
ex member says she knows where they are. We have all the work reports
Nationally However.

• Kingswood School-Residential home in Surrey, we have been told that
there is a lot of sexual abuse going on in there have not yet got hold
of a young person to check this out with.

• Sarah C-in foster care can't talk to anyone re her past, the fact
that if she hadn't been taken into care she would not have made her
fifth birthday, feels alone and isolated.

• Langton House-Mixed-It closed itself down after us working over a
year with the young people to expose it. No independent inquiry that we
called for. Unfortunately we never hear from any of the victims after
and have no clue where they all went to. We still believe the flower
beds in the garden should be dug up as some may have been killed off.
Young People being given Brain Scans, medication, violently restrained,
heads banged off walls, kicked in stomach, dragged down corridors, no
formal training for staff. Allegations of sexual abuse. No formal
investigation. Humiliation, verbal abuse and racism as means to control.
Male staff taking part in strip-searching. Forcible sedation as
punishment. Calming down room used which is unlawful imprisonment.
Tampax given out by male staff with verbal humiliation to the young
girls. No formal way to complain. Names of our cases were;

• Noel-88'-89'Unnessary regular Brain Scans, didn't know what it was
and wasn't told-Abuse of Medication-sedated-Failed to taunt
him-Restrained with force-Locked up-violence. Noel says that all members
of staff used to regularly strip search residents regardless of gender.

• Kevin B

• Nicolas R

• Christina B

• Paula-Blind Girl-failed regularly for getting upset and speaking
loudly. People used to hit her behind her back so she bit them and
they'd fail her.

• Joan G- Kept in most of the time, not the full shilling so staff
used to wind her up and then restrain her. She wasn't allowed anywhere
without a member of staff, they treated her very badly.

• A blind boy- staff used to hit him a lot and one day he wet himself
so they rubbed his face in it. One member of staff regularly threw
water at him.

• Lorna N-17 yrs old-Avon SSD- Lorna at the age of 4yrs and siblings
were beaten by staff at Florbrow Children's home Bristol . She
complained years later and this was never taken seriously even though
the SSD she believes knew at the time.

• Tanya M-moved away from home area so has runaway

• Michelle K- all residents given one week to vacate Derwent house after sudden closure.

• Wilbert C- Put into a hostel by social worker, he was sexually
assaulted by his room mate, nothing done, stabbed by his room mate, room
mate moved to another room, all his electrical goods stolen, nothing
done, bank book stolen, nothing done, complained to SSD and hostel
treasurer, kicked out of hostel and told he needs to see a shrink, then
put into Wembley hostel, still went back to complain, when one day they
took him to the hospital and sedated him for a month. Came out of
hospital looked for legal help, no one would help, got in trouble with
police put on remand for 2 months, taken back to mental hospital for 6
months and sedated regularly we have the evidence notes. Now out and
still seeking to address these matters. He seem's very angry and talks a
lot, bit mad, hardly surprising.

• The Old Mill Hse-Serious allegations received as to the treatment
of residents. Massive file on this. Imposition of a points or marks
system. Continued use of expletives by staff. Violent restraint. The use
by staff of young people to perform menial tasks for them such as;
washing their cars, brass cleaning, ironing of personal laundry. They
were told they could earn extra money of 52 pence which was then eroded
to nothing by staff. They found this routine to earn extra income
exploitative and intimidating. The banishment of one young person to eat
meals in the animal shed, to sleep in a caravan, to sleep on a mattress
on the landing. The irregular supply of clean and inadequate-sized
towels for washing and bathing. Insufficient heating during the winter
months. Limiting drinks of water, tea, coffee to 5 a day. Second hand
clothing including underwear given to residents, no new clothes
whatsoever. Used underwear having to be left in a bucket of disinfectant
each night, found to humiliate residents especially at weekends when it
wouldn't get washed. Showers not working one week and staff catered for
but residents humiliated by having to do a stand up wash. Enforced
viewing of early TV news as homework found to be unsatisfying and
unhelpful. Staff opened personal mail and monitored personal phone
calls. Occasionally personal calls were allowed but only by a phone box
in the village. Forced to take part in games or marked down as
unsocialable. Young people allowed 5 mins privacy in their rooms after
which they are brought back down by a member of staff. Young people say
they are allowed outside for ten minutes a day. No laughing permitted as
this leads to marking down. Young people are only allowed a bedside
lamp once they reach the age of 15 yrs. One resident given no support
whilst pregnant and following a subsequent abortion. One resident had
her hamster confiscated and never given back. One resident told she was
selfish for wanting to find her father and that her mother didn't want
her anyway. During a visit by the fire Inspector the residents were told
to run upstairs and close all the fire doors which were usually left
open. All young people complained they were not given sufficient food.
Some of the Young People; Vicky B, Sarah Mc K, Lisa C, John B and more
no names yet.

• Michael D-Dison Hall-14 yrs old-Violently restrained.

• Tony Mc G-11yrs old-Secure-Dison Hall

• Gary D-Dison Hall-15 yrs old-member of staff head butted him in the secure unit.

• Foad - 15 yrs old- violently restrained told ghost stories.

• Derwent-11 yrs old girl.

• Julie B-Abused by Mr B 3 times a week till she stopped
screaming-Oxford professional telling us Feb-June 1992-Rope burns +
bruises + anal agony due to massive penetration over a long period.
Child porn video's of ‘Mr Men', costumes. Dinosaurs, scenes of fairy
stories with monsters enacted at great expense for sophisticated child
porn films. The plan is to give the child back to the father.

• Ricki F-Orchard Lodge-Grove Lodge-Redhill assessment centre-sexual
abuse by older boys and them wanking in front of staff and months in
secure, saw x rated Omen and other films.

• Sara P- Allegations of abuse at The Grange. Complicated abuse background. A bit crazy now in a strange way.

• Darren B-Cleobury Mortimer School- Abused by two male staff for years. 6 other boys have reported abuse.

• Vincent S. 10 yrs old at the time. Grafton Children's Home-Child
porn Videos. Many other children involved. They would sit in the
children's home in their dressing gowns when one by one they would be
called to the top floor, first floor, emergency room, to have medicals.
In there was a cot, weighing scales, seleotape, masking tape, cameras',
Polaroid's. This went on every night for about 2 months. There were six
boys but he would never touch the girls. Then we would go to a house in
Sea Road , Bexhill. There was a sea Road and he used to drive up the
hill. He had an Alsatian dog that sat in the back of his car. 1979-1981.
Another House was next to the church in Bexhill. Another place they
took Vincent was Elm guest House, Barnes. Two guys took him into a room
and there were video machines and everything in there. He said Vincent
was going to have a medical. He masturbated him and made him have oral
sex with him, whilst he wiped baby oil all over him, tied him with the
seleotape around his legs and arms and around his neck. Arms were behind
his back and nice twice. This lasted about an hour. The man then
exchanged money with Vincent's carer and the carer then took Vincent
back to the home. If the carer made a command Vincent would jump to it
as he was very scared. The medicals started again for another couple of
months but got worse and worse as they seemed to get excited when they
ripped the seleotape off. The home had frequent guests. One Christmas
some Chinese people arrived so no abuse took place. The girls got
perfumes the boys got tonnes of underwear, the reason being that they
were always ruined as they were ripped off all the time. About 3-4
months later Vincent was taken to the guest house again. This time two
men had sex with each other and then tied Vincent to the bed and filmed.
They were also watching a video of scouts. When he left the guest hse
he saw them remove big boxes & cases, one silver case. Vincent was
nearly 12 yrs old by then. Vincent and Peter broke into the staff's
bedroom one day and a silent alarm went to the police station so the
police turned up. They had turned the place upside down but found
nothing. The police told them to get out, saying they could be
prosecuted. The cleaner came in to tidy and found photos and videos of
young people behind the cushions. The police were called back but the
staff disappeared. Vincent never saw that staff again but was told he
got six years. Then he found in 1990 that he pleaded guilty and got 3
months probation and then went back to working with children. In 1990 we
were helping the owner of Elm Guest House to put a case together of
possible abuse going on in her guest hse without her knowledge. 3 months
before the trial at court, she being the chief witness with all the
evidence of who was in and out of her establishment including prominent
people, with photographs of them, was found dead in suspicious
circumstances. I met Vincent co-incidentally, at Madame Jo-Jo's; we both
said at the same time, they murdered her.

• Terry C, sexually abused by officer in charge of Yarwood Road .

• John T-adopted against his will-access to natural family messed
about with lies told to stop access-natural mother died-John 12-13 yrs
old wants something done about the whole case.

• Sharlene E-Lancashire-Abused in the care system-we investigated- Sharlene now dead, went to funeral.

• D M- believed to have been infiltrated by Nottingham child abuse
gang after we exposed them on Channel 4, when she was 16 yrs old, now
has two children by this older man, who has full custody of the
children, we cannot prove he is abusing them but hold suspicion. Need to
pay a top surveillance team or set up a specialist private detective
agency. Police are not careful or useful in these matters nor the social
services and big charities even though we've told them our suspicions,
the older man looks cleaner than clean and DM looks like she abandoned
them when she walked out once she had saved £20,000 & bought herself
a house and took him to court to gain full custody, he had a female top
legal team from London and won on grounds of stability for the children
staying at there home. The mother has access twice a week. She is more
aware now of what possibly happened as she was very young then. The
older man controls the children and gives DM a lot of unrelenting
hassle. He took her to court for half her house but she won and he now
wants to get passports for the children but luckily needs her permission
to do so, she is refusing. Now he is scaring the children and
alienating them from seeing there mother, who knows with what threats,
they now say they don't want to see her, its a nightmare. The system has
shit in its eyes. This is not uncommon. We have told all the relevant
authorities and they can do nothing! It would sound mad to suggest
infiltration or would it? But those kids are scared of him.

• We have the names of the abusers and the abused but it is folly to
hand them over to the police potentially putting our ex-clients in
danger as well as not having permission to do so. We have our new way of
dealing with this and when we are successfully back in business with
all our workers ( we won't come back by half's as we could be ripped
apart) then we can deal with these cases historically and the abuses
that are going on now. WE WILL have systems to bust up abuse and they
will not be hi-lighted on this website. We need our own security as
these abusers are dangerous as we have experienced first hand. These
cases were given to us in strict confidence and are protected by the
data protection act which is why the names are obsurced. If young people
have chosen to contact the police on these matters then that was their
choice, we know most of them did and yet were not listened to. They did
choose to contact us because we were young people running our own
organisation who had been through the care system. Our experience in the field of children's issuesHistory

N.A.Y.P.I.C. is the consumer-led organization first set up in 1979 until
1993 when funding came to a halt. This being at a time when we were exposing
atrocities such as:

Langton house (American Medical International private care hospital
for children) psychiatric hospital, which we had closed down making News
at 10 and costing AMI 8 Million Pounds.

'Pin Down' which prompted a public enquiry

The Nottingham ritual abuse case that we helped work on with, Channel
4 Dispatches.

Melanie Klein House secure unit Greenwich which we had closed down

The Carol Cazier (who died mysteriously during our investigation and
shortly before the court case, which was about to reveal influential people's
involvement) case dating back to 1973, which made front page news in the
Daily Express back then.

Our child pornography and snuff movies exposure, which made front page
in the Times newspaper.

The Bromley privatization of children's homes (selling children with
the homes), which we took to the hight court , the council narrowly escaping
paying £600,000 if we won, however the director of social services
and the chair of SSD both being arrested and put in the cells for taking
bribes and countless more exposures which we are well documented on exposing

We created a tide of justice for children with abusers certainly knowing
where it was being exposed from and had as a result many enemies in the midst.

We will no longer put our workers in danger our our organization in jeopardy
by doing casework.

There is evidence to suggest that workers felt they were being observed
and threatened. The subject of child porn rings attracted a lot of attention
before NAYPIC's closure (two other well known for exposing abuse organizations
also had their government funding withdrawn) and some evidence suggests that
well known personalities were involved.

Children and young people need better protection than merely exposure, they
need a really powerful voice that will be listened to in order to attempt
to actually stop the abuse.

We are now back. We would like to extend our agenda further now by advocatong
a youth parliament for all young people as a voice, regardless of having been
abused, to have broader representation.

Our organization is exclusively consumer-led and as such, we have already
for many years identified the need for representation.

Our last conference in 1993 which had 1100 members attend, as well as our
9 full-time workers stated that a full membership and the advocating of a
youth parliament was the future. Was this too powerful considering the old style way we used to work as within a few months
we were gone!

Each year we hold a national conference to get our opinions. We were the first
organization to advocate a Youth Parliament, as we knew the need for it.
We would like to make it clear, we are not housed by another organization, nor are we adult-led like all the
organizations that do in some way empower young people.

QUOTEEmpowerment is identified in the dictionary as a gift and although good
it is not a right

We are and always have been through many of our strife's, a truly youth-led
organization, blatantly the original and only, National Association of Young
People In Care.
As such we already have a wealth of knowledge, publications, videos, a twenty
seven year-old filing system with computers included, information and experience
and when funded a very powerful nationally implemented Structure and National
Executive Committee.Research
There are countless reasons we, as NN/YP are needed. The original
N.A.Y.P.I.C. over the years has campaigned relentlessly for young people
to be consulted by the policy makers. They are after all the consumers
of the service and decisions made about their care, have far reaching
effects on young peoples lives.
QUOTE

We maintain that no person should be expected to live their lives within
a system that they have not participated in building. Adults at least have
the right to vote.

NN/YP is a unique organization in this country, it is not a professionally-led
organization, it has not developed theoretical practice to identify the psychological
and sociological influences which may determine the way in which young people
should be cared for. It is simply an organization, which has developed its constitution
and policies by listening to its members.
The original N.A.Y.P.I.C. has successfully campaigned and made significant
impact on the way young people are now heard.
Our successful campaigns include:

Participation in reviews

The abolition of the clothing order book

Access to files

In 1983, the original N.A.Y.P.I.C. submitted evidence to the House of Commons,
social services select committee. The committee later said to a community
care journalist, "we've been amazed at the resiliences, in the face
of the experiences that have had to go through. Their maturity has surprised
many members". The original N.A.Y.P.I.C.'s 40-page report, with
its concluding children's charter was:

methodical

comprehensive

representative of an increasing number of children in care who are becoming
vocal in expressing their views

NN/YP also sets out to help social workers and other adults to gain a better
understanding of young people's experiences in care and we aim to give young
people an opportunity to meet and make new friends.

The organizations' first campaign, to ban the clothing order book received
backing from the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Residential Care Association
and the British Association of Social Workers.

Our second campaign, the rights of young people to attend reviews and case
conferences, was launched with some 3,000 questionnaires to young people in
different situations and was supported by a parallel survey by the N.F.C.A.

The original N.A.Y.P.I.C. has achieved recognition in the field of child
care policy has been supported by the A.D.S.S., the S.C.A, the National Children's
Bureau, the National Council of Voluntary Organizations, the National Foster
Care Association, Community Service Volunteers and many others.

The original N.A.Y.P.I.C. was also endorsed in the 1984 Select Committee
enquiry into Childcare and gave evidence to the Barclay Committee.

The original N.A.Y.P.I.C. gave evidence to the Stafforshire 'pin down' inquiry
and also the government review into residential childcare, headed by Sir William
Utting.

About Me

I would like those who know about abuse to break ranks, whether you are in a society or club or are the head of state I believe you care. So show it. Take direct action on the internet, start a petition under an alias, explode in your own PR very significant abuses in all of our human rights, if you are that clever then educate and give us all a chance to participate but do not do nothing... for when they screw your grand child you will be blamed as an apathetic generation who did nothing even though you knew.. BREAK RANKS THEY DO NOT CARE - ABOUT You and there is always something you CAN do... BREAK RANKS... BREAK RANKS and You yes You too all of you, just do it and be proud to... you owe it to yourself finally